Are eroding values compromising our freedom AND our economy?

That is what I state.

The people can do this if the purpose of free speech is allowed to manifest fully. It will not happen immediately, but it will happen because assuring our survival and evolution is actually more exciting that being exploited, mislead and abused.

Media has blunted the instincts that power the higher functioning we are capable of. Through involvement with decision making that protects our futures inspirations untold will transform us even faster than media corrupted us.

Absolutes of natural law that assure survival and evolution trigger epigenetics that thrust us forward into much more functional mental as well as physical development.

The principles of the 1787 constitution are the beginning and basis for excitation of those epigenetics.

 

You're talking in vague generalities. What national action are you suggesting exactly?

 

It seems that, by definition, something can be considered as being in violation of one's life, liberty, or property when it actually violates one's life, liberty, or property.

Noted.

 

Something tells me government actions post 1871 act have what is constitutional and in accord with unalienable rights confused. Since 1871 the federal has strayed far from the intents of the framing documents.

Accordingly the people, in order to become "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" must re know, and assert that knowledge to define constitutional intent by their agreement. The foundation of that is an inquiry that must resonate amongst us.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

After a time, and we can hasten that by willfully spreading the inquiry and agreement, a wave of public intent to alter and abolish will support activists that carry lawful process into state legislations to purify states readying them to conduct conventions in 3/4 if them and impose "preparatory amendment" upon the federal constitution.

Preparation makes the people ready to fully participate by enabling their return to a constitutional state of mind.

Only after that is established ar proposals for generally amending finally produced by states. Ending the abridging if the purpose of free speech is the most primary preparation.

 

What term are we defining?

Disagree.

 

yes the erosion of values, the decay of principles, the absence of human decency, and the lack of morals will strip us of our freedoms and liberties
because the less values, principles, human decency and morals we have as individuals the more the government feels the urgency to pass and enforce laws to control us because the lack of values, principles, human decency and morals we demonstrate

 

In my estimation, the ever-declining value of personal independence and responsibility amongst Americans has been one of the most disastrous developments in our country and culture. A great nation requires great individuals and societies that lose sight of that are doomed to failure. Sadly, History has taught us this lesson over and over again, yet people persist in ignoring it at their own peril.

 

Or is it that people who believe in nothing will stand for nothing? Eventually they will fall prey to the wolves who seek power and control over their entire existences.

 

I do not think there is disagreement here. There seems to be contextual gap that's not defined.

I may be wrong, but you may be coming from the perspective of anarchy, where if government takes life, it is wrong.

Constitutional law only imposes that for crimes which have been adjudicated by a jury of peers that judge guilt and applicability of law with the power to nullify the law if they feel it misapplied in the case.

This natural law logic goes back to the Magna Carta, and, a group of people have to draw the line somewhere relating to punishment, justice and the intent of law for protecting the commonly agreed interest.

Is this perspective getting close to defining the basis of your objection?

 

I'm unclear what you're asking. Are you saying you don't understand the concept of violating life, liberty, or property of someone? Do you somehow not understand what this means?

 

I think the NAP would be a good basis, and would be the next progression of evoluton the Constitution should take. The issue I have with the Constitution is the violation of liberty involving taxation but at the time that was pretty much the only thing they knew that could achieve their goals. That initial concept of taxation, tempered and limited so as not to be the same as it was under serfdom of the oppressive government they were escaping has been bastardized to approach those same levels of oppression today. This is why taxation should now be recognized as an infringement upon liberty just as censorship and religious oppression.

 

The basis of my objection is that I don't consider it right to violate the person or property of my fellow man. Everyone should have the right to be free of violations of his life, liberty, and property.

 

If some particular act violates someone's life, liberty, or property, it does so regardless of what is written in the constitution.

 

If the particular act invades, trespasses upon, encroaches upon, or intrudes upon someone's person, liberty, or property.

 

The detrimental legislation passing through Congress is a result of our lack of collective integrity, but it is for the purpose of exploiting us, not rehabilitating us. Lobbies and campaign contributors provide better incentives than the general public.

 

The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, or the anti-coercion or zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The principle is a deontological (or rule-based) ethical stance.

 

In a "golden rule" situation context is what you refer to. An ideal. In practice, sometime the ideal works, other times there are compromises.

Straight up, there is a set of cognitive distortions implemented here that are preventing understanding.

"Everyone (all or nothing thinking) should have the right (entitlement) to be free (maximization, overgeneralization) of violations (Catastrophizing, minimization) of his life, liberty, and property (ideals)."

For future reference, here is a list.

COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS


A) All or nothing thinking- Things are placed in black or white categories.(*) If things are less than perfect self is viewed as failure.


B) Over generalization- Single event is viewed as continuous failure.


C) Mental filter- Details in life (positive or negative) are amplified in importance while opposite is rejected.


D) Minimizing- Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.
F) Mind reading- One absolutely concludes that others are reacting positively or negatively without investigating reality.


G) Fortune Telling- Based on previous 5 distortions, anticipation of negative or positive outcome of situations is established
H) Catastrophizing- Exaggerated importance of self's failures and others successes.


I) Emotional reasoning- One feels as though emotional state IS reality of situation.


J) "Should" statements- Self imposed rules about behavior creating guilt at self inability to adhere and anger at others in their inability to conform to self's rules.


K) Labeling:- Instead of understanding errors over generalization is applied.


L) Personalization- Thinking that the actions or statements of others are a reaction to you.


M) Entitlement- Believing that you deserve things you have not earned.


They were created for diagnosing the aspects treated with cognitive therapy, but they still work in resolving communication issues that comprise the Mental filter.

 

I wanted to add-Today's Constitution allows unreasonable infringement upon liberty because of the bastardized interpretation allowed by case law. It is time for our rule of law to evolve much like the Constitution evolved rule of law that came before it.

 

Yes, but technically today the constitution is the same constitution of 1787. What we have is an infiltrated unconstitutional federal government since the act of 1871 that has been steadily abandoning all pretense of operating under the 1787 agreement.

Therefore we need a lawful and peaceful revolution.

 

I never got an accurate picture of the american dream, but i suppose it is what most People wish to have: freedom, a beatiful family, enough money to live a decent life. Now it's more like people have no real clue of what is to be considered good and honest, just make as much money as you can without worrying much about the rest. It is a diseducative society overall, it is the time of decadence and greed.